Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:04-CV-0366.
March 31, 2006
ORDER
AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2006, upon consideration of plaintiff's fourth motion for motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 111), and it appearing from the complaint, amended complaint, motions and briefs filed by plaintiff, that plaintiff is capable of properly and forcefully prosecuting his claims with adequate investigation and discovery requests and appropriate citations to governing authority, and that resolution of plaintiff's claims neither implicates complex legal or factual issues or requires the testimony of expert witnesses, see Montgomery v. Pinchak, 294 F.3d 492, 499 (3d Cir. 2002) (citingTabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 155-57 (3d Cir. 1993)), it is hereby ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 111) is DENIED. If further proceedings demonstrate the need for counsel, the matter will be reconsidered either sua sponte or upon motion of plaintiff.
Plaintiff's first motion was denied by order dated June 17, 2004, (Doc. 20), the second motion was denied on April 25, 2005, (Doc. 68), and the third motion was denied by order dated December 13, 2005, (Doc. 106).